Magic Items and Ideas

[JoelF847]

As a parallel thread to the Spells and Ideas thread, lets start a thread about specific magic items that people feel need changes, either in their function or their price. Some general guidelines:

•Read the SRD and Pathfinder Beta versions of an item before making a post that references that item.
•We're all human, so correct other poster's mistakes about items politely.
•Try not to post about the same item repeatedly. Make one or two posts with your thoughts on a single item or group of items, then move on to a new one. If you want to argue, please start another thread so we don't have to!
•Talk about items. No alternate crafting systems, no systems at all!
•Because of the PF design goals, it's always better to say "Item x needs these changes to be worth it's level" than to say "Item x should be y price."

To start, there's a few low priced items that I've always felt are too cheap. Mainly the Handy Haversack (along with Bags of Holding) and the Hat of Disguise.

While these items could simply be increased in price, I think that it might be better to keep the price point for the Haversack, but reduce it's funtionality to allow for instant retrieval without attacks of opportunity, and a +4 circumstance bonus to strength for determining carrying capacity, instead of the bag of holding part as well. This would better separate it from the actual bags of holding. At the same time an increase to the costs of bags of holding might be appropriate. Maybe I'm alone in this, but I think it's too cheap to have extra-dimensional storage at the current rates.

As for hat of disguise, I think that this is another item that's too cheap for what it provides, which is 24 hour continual disguise self. To keep it at the same price level, I'd recommend reducing it to 3 times per day for 1 hour per use, with each use being used for 1 disguise only, instead of the current way it works which allows for mutliple changes to appearance.

[Jal Dorak]

Shatterspike (from Web Enhancement).

Counts as a +4 weapon when sundering. Implies you add enchancement bonus to sunder CMB (elsewhere it is not mentioned). Also, if applied to an adamantine weapon, it becomes extremely powerful. Not an issue per se, but given the usefulness of CM to fighters now, the weapon might need some repricing.

Also, is the +1 enhancement part of the base price? If so, you are getting a situational +4 weapon for 2000gp. That seems a bit inexpensive. Can this property be added to any weapon? Ie: Could you add it to a +2 weapon to have an effective +5 weapon for sunder?

[JoelF847]

Jal Dorak wrote:

Shatterspike (from Web Enhancement).

Counts as a +4 weapon when sundering. Implies you add enchancement bonus to sunder CMB (elsewhere it is not mentioned). Also, if applied to an adamantine weapon, it becomes extremely powerful. Not an issue per se, but given the usefulness of CM to fighters now, the weapon might need some repricing.

Also, is the +1 enhancement part of the base price? If so, you are getting a situational +4 weapon for 2000gp. That seems a bit inexpensive. Can this property be added to any weapon? Ie: Could you add it to a +2 weapon to have an effective +5 weapon for sunder?

I think that this should be adjusted based on the new sundering rules. In 3.5, improved sunder granted a +4, but in PRPG, it grants a +2. The shatterspike, therefore, should probably only grant a +2 to sunder in PRPG, and keep the price the same.

[JoelF847]

Over on the Welcome to Beta thread, Traxium posted a great idea about monk's 20th level DR, and how it should be changed to DR 10/chaotic instead of /magic.

This got me thinking that a similar change to the armor quality of Invulnerability should be considered. At a +3 equivilent ability, it's pretty underpowered, since most enemies you'll be fighting can ignore it. The cheapest you can get this power is on a +4 equivilent armor, which sells for 16K more than the MW version. Comparing to the adamantine price for heavy armor of 15K, which grants 3/- DR, I'd suggest that changing the invulnerability quality to 5/adamantium would be a much better fit for the price. The numeric part of the DR is higher than that granted by adamantium, but it can be overcome. Would that be more balanced for the price?